Tag Archives: India

Atlantic: The World No Longer Takes Trump Seriously

Posted on by
Reply

At parades and in the halls of global power, America has been sidelined.

The leaders of Russia, China, and North Korea are not good men. They preside over brutal autocracies replete with secret police and prison camps. But they are, nevertheless, serious men, and they know an unserious man when they see one. For nearly a decade, they have taken Donald Trump’s measure, and they have clearly reached a conclusion: The president of the United States is not worthy of their respect.

Wednesday’s military parade in Beijing is the most recent evidence that the world’s authoritarians consider Trump a lightweight. Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s maximum nepo baby, Kim Jong Un, gathered to celebrate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. (Putin’s Belarusian satrap, Alexander Lukashenko, was also on hand.) The American president was not invited: After all, what role did the United States play in defeating Japan and liberating Eurasia? Instead, Trump, much like America itself, was left to watch from the sidelines.

But the parade was worse than a mere snub. Putin, Xi, and Kim stood in solidarity while reviewing China’s military might only weeks after Putin came to Alaska and showed no interest in moving to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. The White House tried to spin that ill-advised summit into at least a draw between Putin and Trump, but when the Kremlin’s dictator shows up with no interest in negotiation, speaks first at a press conference, and then caps the day by declining a carefully planned lunch and flying home, that’s a humiliation, not an exchange of views.

Nor has Trump fared very well with the other two members of this cheery 21st-century incarnation of SPECTRE. In the midst of Trumpian chaos, Xi is adroitly positioning China as the new face of international stability and responsibility. He has even made a show of offering partnership to China’s rival and former enemy India: Chinese diplomats last month said that China stands with India against the American “bully” when Trump was, for some reason, trying to impose 50 percent tariffs on India.

Likewise, the North Koreans, after playing to Trump’s ego and his ignorance of international affairs during meetings in the president’s first term, have continued their march to a nuclear arsenal that within years could grow to be larger than the United Kingdom’s. Trump was certain that he could negotiate with Kim, but the perfumed days of “love letters” between Trump and Kim are long over. Pyongyang’s leadership seems to know that it costs them little to humor Trump politely, but that they should reserve serious discussion for the leaders of serious countries.

Trump responded to his exclusion from the gala in Beijing by acting exactly like the third-tier leader that Xi, Putin, and Kim seem to think he is. As the event was taking place, Trump took to his social-media site—of course—to express his hurt feelings with a cringe-inducing attempt at a zinger. “May President Xi and the wonderful people of China have a great and lasting day of celebration. Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America.”

Now, the reality is that Russia, China, and North Korea are conspiring against America, but it is beneath both the dignity and the power of an American president to whine about it. Trump continued his unseemly carping with a demand that China recognize the valor of the Americans who died in the Pacific:

The big question to be answered is whether or not President Xi of China will mention the massive amount of support and ‘blood’ that The United States of America gave to China in order to help it to secure its FREEDOM from a very unfriendly foreign invader. Many Americans died in China’s quest for Victory and Glory. I hope that they are rightfully Honored and Remembered for their Bravery and Sacrifice!

This message does not exactly project confidence and leadership; instead, it sounds like the grousing of a man beset by insecurities. A more self-assured commander in chief would have ignored the parade and, if asked about it, would have said something to the effect that the United States has always respected the sacrifices of our allies in World War II. But not Trump: He petulantly declared that he would not have attended even if the cool kids had invited him.

Authoritarians are unfortunately in good company in treating Trump as an incompetent leader. Even America’s allies have recognized that Trump may be their formal partner, but that they mostly get things done with the American president by soothing his ego and working around him. After Trump emerged from the summit in Anchorage essentially parroting Putin’s talking points, seven top European leaders rushed to Washington to tell Trump that he had done well and that they truly, really respected him, but that perhaps he should hold off on being a co-signer of Kremlin policy.

Trump’s damage to American power and prestige would be less severe if the president had a foreign policy and a team to execute it. He has neither: Trump ran for president mostly for personal reasons, including to stay out of prison, and his foreign policy, such as it is, is merely an extension of his personal interests. He holds summits, issues social-media pronouncements, and engages in photo ops mostly, it seems, either to burnish his claim to a Nobel Prize or to change the news cycle when issues such as the economy (or the Jeffrey Epstein files) get too much traction.

Worse, Trump is no longer surrounded by people who care about foreign affairs or can competently step in and create consistent policy. In his first term, Trump had a secretary of defense, James Mattis, who helped to create a national-defense strategy, a document that Trump might have ignored but was at least promulgated to a national-security establishment that needed direction from someone, somewhere. Now, at the Pentagon, Trump has Pete Hegseth, who shows little apparent inclination or ability to think about complexities.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was supposed to be one of the new “adults in the room,” but he has instead become a man in a Velcro suit, with the president sticking jobs and responsibilities onto him without any further guidance. He has been reduced to sitting glumly in White House press sprays with foreign leaders while Trump embarrasses himself and his guests. Meanwhile, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is spending her time trying to root out the spies she thinks hate the president. Unfortunately, the agents she’s hunting are Americans, which must bring a smile to Xi’s face and perhaps even produce a belly laugh from former KGB officer Putin.

America is adrift. It has no coherent foreign policy, no team of senior professionals managing its national defense and diplomacy, and a president who has little interest in the world beyond what it can offer him. Little wonder that the men who gathered in Beijing—three autocrats whose nations are collectively pointing many hundreds of nuclear weapons at the United States—feel free to act as if they don’t even think twice about Trump or the country he leads.

What do you expect when you turn your country over to a narcissistic grifter with dementia, 6 bankruptcies, and 34 felony convictions?

The World No Longer Takes Trump Seriously
At parades and in the halls of global power, America has been sidelined.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/trump-parade-china-putin-xi-kim/684113

Independent: Trump asks Supreme Court to approve his tariffs after warning US would be ‘destroyed’ if they don’t go ahead

Posted on by
Reply

President demands highest court weigh in on his use of International Emergency Economic Powers Act 1977 to slap hefty levies on imported goods

Donald Trump has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s ruling that the basis for his “reciprocal tariffs” policy was not legal, having warned the country would be “destroyed” without it.

The Court of Appeals ruled on Friday in agreement with a May finding by the Court of International Trade that the president had overstepped his authority by invoking a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 1977 to place hefty levies on goods imported from America’s trading partners.

Trump was incensed by the decision, insisting it was “highly partisan” and “would literally destroy the United States of America.”

Now, the administration has asked the conservative-majority Supreme Court to decide whether to take up the case by September 10, despite its new term not beginning until October 6, with a view to hearing arguments in November.

“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” Solicitor General D John Sauer wrote in his filing. “The president and his cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe.”

Attorneys representing small businesses challenging the tariff program said they were not opposed to the Supreme Court hearing the matter and said, on the contrary, they were confident their arguments would prevail.

“These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival,” said Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center. “We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.”

Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs in the White House Rose Garden on April 2, invoking the IEEPA to set a 10 percent baseline tax on all imports and even higher taxes on goods being shipped from nearly every one of America’s trading partners, with China, Canada and Mexico among those hardest hit.

However, his announcement sent shockwaves through the world’s stock markets as investors panicked over their likely economic consequences, eventually forcing Trump into a rethink. He duly announced a week later that the implementation of the tariffs would be suspended for 90 days, a deadline that was eventually extended until August.

Administration officials led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick used the intervening summer months to attempt to broker custom deals with other countries but only succeeded in securing a handful of agreements, notably with the U.K. and Vietnam.

A revised list of tariffs that came into effect on August 7 saw India (51 percent), Syria (41 percent), Laos (40 percent), Myanmar (4o percent) and Switzerland (39 percent) particularly hard done by.

Then, last week, the Court of Appeals agreed with two challenges, one brought by the small businesses and another by 12 states, to rule in a seven-four majority decision that the president’s power to regulate imports under the law does not include the power to impose tariffs.

“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the justices wrote in their decision.

They added that U.S. law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.”

The Independent is the world’s most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.

Bubba dearest,

Your tariffs are illegal.

You had no legal authority to levy them.

They gotta go.

You gotta go, too.

Period.

Stop.

End of story.

Trump asks Supreme Court to approve his tariffs program after legal setbacks
President demands highest court weigh in on his use of International Emergency Economic Powers Act 1977 to slap hefty levies on imported goods

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-supreme-court-tariffs-appeal-b2819975.html

Newsweek: Lower income Americans issued warning over Trump post move

Posted on by
Reply

A nearly century-old trade rule that allowed Americans to import small packages without paying duties has been eliminated by President Donald Trump‘s administration, which could disproportionately affect low-income households.

Why It Matters

The “de minimis” exemption, which applied to packages worth under $800 coming into the U.S., had long allowed goods to bypass customs duties and complex paperwork. On August 29, the Trump administration officially ended the rule, which covered 1.36 billion shipments valued at $64.6 billion in fiscal year 2024.

While the end of de minimis came for China—the largest inbound source of such shipments—and Hong Kong earlier this year, the August 29 change impacts every U.S. trading partner. As a result, more than 30 countries’ postal operators restricted or suspended shipments to the U.S. ahead of the policy change, including major trade partners such as India, Mexico, and Japan.

Supporters of the policy shift argue that it levels the playing field for domestic businesses and addresses concerns over unsafe imports. Trump described the de minimis exemption as “a big scam going on against our country, against really small businesses, and we’ve ended it.” The White House said the rule had also been exploited to evade tariffs and enables the import of illegal substances such as fentanyl.

What To Know

According to a 2024 National Bureau of Economic Research paper, eliminating de minimis could reduce consumer welfare by up to $13 billion each year, with lower-income households feeling the greatest impact.

The research found that the de minimis rule is a “pro-poor trade policy,” but its elimination flips it “from pro-poor to pro-rich.”

Shipments to the lowest-income zip codes face an average tariff of just 0.5 percent, compared with 1.5 percent for the wealthiest areas, the research says. In scrapping the rule, that balance flips, with tariffs for low-income communities projected jump to nearly 12 percent, while wealthier areas would see an increase of about 6.5 percent.

On top of that, every package would be charged an administrative fee, a cost that the research says would fall hardest on low-income households since they make more use of de minimis shipments.

“Lower-income households that rely on inexpensive imported goods such as clothing, household items, and phone accessories will be hardest hit,” Usha Haley, Barton distinguished chair in international business at Wichita State University, told Newsweek.

“For these consumers, even small increases in the prices of everyday items are a larger share of their discretionary spending, making the policy regressive in practice.”

Commercial carriers, which handle the majority of these parcels, must now file customs entries and pay tariffs. For postal services, flat fees of $80 to $200 are allowed temporarily, and will soon switch to the origin country’s applicable tariff rate. In many cases, sellers will pass on the cost of this to the consumer.

Sean Henry, CEO and co-founder at supply chain company Stord, agreed the burden of higher prices will be particularly visible in poorer communities. “A disproportionate amount of shipments entering the U.S. under the de minimis program were going to lower-income zip codes,” he told Newsweek.

“Consumers of a lower-income level have often found these extremely cheap products from platforms like Shein and Temu, and those product categories will feel the impact most acutely.”

Why Is De Minimis Being Axed?

The White House and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have both contended that de minimis rules have been exploited by bad actors.

According to the CBP, smugglers have exploited de minimis shipments to move drugs and weapons into the country. They often undervalue or mislabel goods, disguising dangerous items as harmless.

The White House has made similar assertions, saying that de minimis has encourages the evasion of tariffs and allowed the funneling of “deadly synthetic opioids as well as other unsafe or below-market products that harm American workers and businesses into the United States.”

What Happens Next

The end of de minimis won’t just impact America’s poorest, with all consumers facing price hikes on goods made outside of the U.S.

“In the short term, consumers are likely to see immediate price hikes,” Robert Khachatryan, CEO at Freight Right Global Logistics, told Newsweek. “Low-dollar items such as $10 accessories or fast-fashion staples will face double-digit percentage increases once merchandise processing fees and duties are applied.”

Lower income Americans issued warning over Trump post move
“Lower-income households that rely on inexpensive imported goods such as clothing and household items will be hardest hit,” one expert told Newsweek.

https://www.newsweek.com/lower-income-americans-warning-trump-de-minimis-2122766

MSNBC: Alligator Alcatraz winds down operations, leaving Floridians on the financial hook

Posted on by
Reply
Alligator Alcatraz winds down operations, leaving Floridians on the financial hook
President Trump’s tariffs were struck down in court, however until a final weigh in by the Supreme Court is made, the import taxes will remain in effect on dozens of U.S. trading partners. Wall Street Journal national politics reporter Sabrina Siddiqui, Vote Save America Head Shaniqua McClendon, and former Rep. Carlos Curbelo join Alex Witt to discuss the tariff turmoil, Alligator Alcatraz’s decommissioning, and chaos at the CDC.

Blame your idiot governor for the $ quarter billion tab that Florida residents are being stuck with!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alligator-alcatraz-winds-down-operations-leaving-floridians-on-the-financial-hook/vi-AA1LB1HH

Newsweek: Child Protections for Green Card Applicants Reversed: What To Know

Posted on by
Reply

Anew interpretation of immigration law has upended protections for children of long-waiting green card applicants, putting some 200,000 young people—many of whom have spent their entire lives in the U.S.—at risk of losing their legal status once they turn 21.

The change to the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) undoes a Biden-era policy that had shielded thousands of children from “aging out” of green card eligibility, and represents a seismic alteration for children on immigrant families holding H-1B visas.

Why It Matters

The rollback isn’t just a technical tweak to visa calculations—it could decide whether thousands of children stay with their families or are forced to leave the only country they’ve ever known.

The impact will fall hardest on families of H-1B visa holders stuck in the green card backlog. About 200,000 children—mostly from India and China—risk “aging out” when they turn 21, losing dependent status and facing a future of student visas, self-deportation, or exile. For families who have already waited decades, the change highlights both the fragility of existing protections and the broader failures of America’s immigration system to keep families together.

What To Know

The new U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rule officially took effect on August 15. From that date forward, only the Final Action Dates chart from the Visa Bulletin will determine a child’s CSPA age.

Families that submit adjustment of status applications before that date will still be protected under the more flexible February 2023 policy, which allowed children to rely on the earlier “Dates for Filing” chart. Those who wait beyond the deadline risk seeing their children age out much faster under the new calculation system.

In practical terms, families who delay filing until after mid-August may lose the protective cushion that previously gave them more time before their children turned 21.

The New Changes and What They Mean

The 2023 policy let families use the Dates for Filing chart to lock in a child’s CSPA age. This gave families valuable time and allowed more children to remain eligible as dependents, even amid long visa backlogs.

Immigration lawer, Carolyn Lee said: “The 2023 policy was an expansive move by USCIS to allow children to stop aging earlier. That is, to be given a broader avenue to remain under 21. However, this move raised other questions because it did not conform with U.S. State Department’s adoption of the “stop aging” point – or “visa availability.” So, the new policy, while snapping back to the less expansive position, aligns with State’s and eliminates confusion in this regard.”

Lee added: “The real problem is that dependents still can get separated from their parents during the lengthy visa adjudication process. Our immigration laws embrace family unity as a public goal, and so while we’re thankful to have CSPA, when faced with clients who face the very difficult outcome of being separated from their little ones, I do wonder whether we can look at this problem through a different lens and come up with a better solution.”

Advocates praised the 2023 policy as fairer, but critics said it conflicted with the State Department’s rules. With the new policy, USCIS is now reverting to Final Action Dates, aligning policies but narrowing protections. Eligibility will now hinge solely on this, and the change could accelerate the point at which children “age out” by turning 21 before receiving their green card.

The result is less flexibility for families, has higher risks for children, and potentially devastating consequences for those who have spent years—sometimes decades—waiting in line for permanent residency.

What Is the CSPA?

The Child Status Protection Act, passed in 2002, was designed precisely to shield families from bureaucratic delays.

Its goal was to allow children to retain eligibility despite the often yearslong wait between filing and approval.

The law calculates a “CSPA age” that subtracts certain delays from a child’s actual age, sometimes keeping them under the age of 21 even after their actual twenty-first birthday passes.

The law, however, leaves room for interpretation, especially around what counts as a “visa availability date.”

Without congressional reform of green card quotas, experts warn that children will continue facing the risk of aging out.

What People Are Saying

USCIS, in an August 8 alert detailing changes to the CSPA, said: “The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines a child as a person who is both unmarried and under 21 years old. If an alien applies for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status as a child but turns 21 before being approved for LPR status (also known as getting a Green Card), that alien can no longer be considered a child for immigration purposes.

It added: “This situation is commonly referred to as aging out, and may mean these aliens must file a new petition or application or wait even longer to get a Green Card, or are no longer eligible for a Green Card.”

Immigration lawer, Carolyn Lee told Newsweek via email on August 26 “The Child Status Protection Act is an important ameliorative law [something that improves a situation or reduces harm] that recognizes that delays in U.S. immigration processing can separate parents from their children and addresses that heartbreaking problem. It does so by providing a mechanism—a formula, really—that in its operation may keep children under 21 and thereby retain their derivative status.

What Happens Next

USCIS will open a formal rulemaking process later in 2025, inviting public comments that advocates and families are expected to use to push back against the policy. Legal challenges are also possible, as courts may be asked to decide whether the stricter interpretation conflicts with the CSPA’s purpose of keeping families together.

In the meantime, lawyers are urging families to act fast and document extraordinary circumstances to protect eligibility.

The Trump regime is making changes that will likely force 200,000 children of H-1B visa holders to leave the only country they’ve ever known.

Child Protections for Green Card Applicants Reversed: What To Know
Stricter green card rules may split families because children of visa holders lose protections once they turn 21.

https://newsweek.com/child-protections-green-card-applicants-reversed-what-know-2119952

CNN: End of an era: Billions of packages of ‘cheap’ goods shipped to the US are now subject to steep tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

A big change to all the “cheap goods” Americans order just went into effect.

For nearly a century, low-value packages of goods from abroad have entered the United States duty free, thanks to what’s known as the “de minimis rule,” which as of 2015 has applied to packages worth less than $800.

The loophole has reshaped the way countless Americans shop, enabling many small businesses globally to sell goods to US consumers with relative ease and allowing, in particular, ultra-low-cost Chinese e-commerce sites like Shein, Temu and AliExpress to sell everything from clothing to furniture to electronics directly to American shoppers, escaping many duties in place for packages exceeding the $800 threshold.

But those days are over. As of one minute past midnight Eastern Time, all imported goods — regardless of their value — are now subject to 10% to 50% tariff rates, depending on their country of origin. (In certain cases, they could face a flat fee of $80 to $200, but only for the next six months.)

A headache for delivery services

Ahead of the expiration of the de minimis rule, a slew of delivery services across Europe, as well as Japan, Australia, Taiwan and Mexico suspended deliveries to the United States, citing logistical compliance challenges.

International shipper UPS, meanwhile, said in a statement to CNN Thursday: “We stand ready for the new changes and do not anticipate any backlogs or delays.”

DHL, which suspended service for standard parcel shipments from Germany but is continuing to ship international packages to the United States from all other countries it serves, told CNN that shipments “may experience delays during the transitional period as all parties adjust to the changes in tariff policy and regulation.”

The United States Postal Service and FedEx declined to comment on whether customers should anticipate delays.

“Our systems are fully programmed and equipped to support the seamless implementation of these changes. CBP has prepared extensively for this transition and stands ready with a comprehensive strategy, having provided clear and timely guidance to supply chain partners, including foreign postal operators, carriers, and qualified third parties to ensure compliance with the new rules.

Susan Thomas, the acting executive assistant commissioner for Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Trade, told CNN in a statement that the agency’s systems “are fully programmed and equipped to support the seamless implementation of these changes.”

“CBP has prepared extensively for this transition and stands ready with a comprehensive strategy, having provided clear and timely guidance to supply chain partners, including foreign postal operators, carriers, and qualified third parties to ensure compliance with the new rules,” she said.

A potential benefit for some American small businesses

While some small businesses, like some individual consumers, have benefited from the de minimis exemption by purchasing goods duty-free, the end of the exemption may benefit some, too.

For Steve Raderstorf, co-owner of Scrub Identity, which sells scrubs and other medical apparel at two stores located in Indianapolis, the tariff change will “level the playing field” for him and, he believes, other small business owners, he said.

A 2023 report by Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that advocates for US producers and manufacturers, estimates that e-commerce giants like Amazon and Walmart took in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue in 2022 through their networks of third-party sellers who took advantage of the loophole.

Raderstorf said almost all the goods he sells are imported. But as a small business, he doesn’t have the ability to set up a third-party network to tap into the exemption. Instead, his imported goods are all subject to applicable tariffs.

Additionally, many of the foreign manufacturers from whom he purchases goods in bulk in order to get a better price have benefited from de minimis by setting up sites to sell directly to people who could have otherwise shopped at his stores.

With de minimis gone, he feels small businesses have a better chance to compete more fairly with mega retailers and also support their local communities more.

“When somebody comes to my door and they want me to support the local football team or baseball team, I have money to do that then, and then it gets back into the community,” he told CNN. “When it goes to China, it never, ever stays in the United States — it’s gone for good.”

Since the de minimis exemption was closed for China and Hong Kong, CBP has seen packages that would have otherwise qualified for duty-free status go down from an average of 4 million a day to 1 million, White House officials told reporters Thursday.

Raderstorf is empathetic to Americans who are concerned about the increased cost of goods — but at the same time, he’s hopeful it’s “going to push them back out into their communities to meet their local retailers.”

End of an era: Billions of packages of ‘cheap’ goods shipped to the US are now subject to steep tariffs | CNN Business
A big change to all the “cheap goods” Americans order just went into effect.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/29/business/end-of-an-era-billions-of-packages-of-cheap-goods-shipped-to-the-us-are-now-subject-to-steep-tariffs

Slingshot News: ‘He Came Over And Hugged Me’: Trump Makes Up A Fake Story Of Maryland Governor Wes Moore In Embarrassing Oval Office Moment

Posted on by
Reply
‘He Came Over And Hugged Me’: Trump Makes Up A Fake Story Of Maryland Governor Wes Moore In Embarrassing Oval Office Moment
Donald Trump signed a batch of executive orders several days ago in the Oval Office. During his gaggle with the press, Trump made up a fake story about Maryland Governor Wes Moore hugging him and calling him the “greatest president” of his lifetime. Moore responded with a 3-letter statement: lol.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/he-came-over-and-hugged-me-trump-makes-up-a-fake-story-of-maryland-governor-wes-moore-in-embarrassing-oval-office-moment/vi-AA1Lout7

Slingshot News: ‘I Thought We’d Have That Settled Easier’: Trump Demonstrates His Incompetence, Defends His Failed Negotiations With Russia During Press Conference

Posted on by
Reply
‘I Thought We’d Have That Settled Easier’: Trump Demonstrates His Incompetence, Defends His Failed Negotiations With Russia During Press Conference
During his remarks at a press conference in June, President Trump defended his failed negotiations with Russia. Trump stated, “I thought we’d have that settled easier.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-thought-we-d-have-that-settled-easier-trump-demonstrates-his-incompetence-defends-his-failed-negotiations-with-russia-during-press-conference/vi-AA1LkS4d

Alternet: Trucking industry in shambles as Trump crackdown threatens supply chains

Posted on by
Reply

Newsweek reports a trade group representing the trucking industry is supporting Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s pause of work visas for immigrant truckers, despite the halt potentially aggravating work shortages in the U.S. trucking industry.

Rubio’s announcement followed a fatal crash on a Florida highway earlier this month involving a trucker from India who officials confirmed was in the country illegally. Newsweek reports preliminary findings by the Department of Transportation (DOT) revealed the driver failed assessments on his English language proficiency and his understanding of U.S. highway traffic rules.

Rubio did not reference the fatal accident at the time of his announcement, reports Newsweek, but did claim in a post on X that the increasing number of foreign truckers was “endangering American lives and undercutting the livelihoods of American truckers.”

In a statement released Thursday, Chris Spear, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA), said his group supported the move, and that the issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) “needs serious scrutiny, including the enforcement of entry-level driver training standards.”

“At a minimum, we need better accounting of how many non-domiciled CDLs are being issued, which is why we applaud Transportation Secretary Duffy for launching a nationwide audit in June upon our request,” Spear told Newsweek. “… We also believe a surge in enforcement of key regulations — including motor carrier compliance — is necessary to prevent bad actors from operating on our nation’s highways, and we’ll continue to partner with federal and state authorities to identify where those gaps in enforcement exist.”

Industry reporters claims many employed in the trucking industry supported Trump for president.

As part of his crackdown on immigration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Duffy to tighten regulations on English proficiency for commercial drivers in April, despite English language requirements already being included in federal regulations.

In February, trucking industry newsletter Matrack reported The U.S. trucking industry faces a severe driver shortage, “with a projected shortfall of 160,000 by 2030, disrupting supply chains and increasing costs.” It added that the aging workforce and CDL licensing challenges, combined with low pay, health concerns and high turnover, plague the industry.

“Long-haul trucking has a turnover rate of over 90 percent in large companies, reported Matrack. “This means that almost every driver in the industry will leave their job within a year. Long hours, stressful working conditions, and time away from home make the job unattractive.”

Labor Department data said that the number of foreign-born truckers in the U.S. comprise around 18 percent of the total workforce, said Newsweek.

Read the Newsweek report at this link.

Trucking industry in shambles as Trump crackdown threatens supply chains

https://www.alternet.org/trump-trucking-supporters

Forbes: Trump Lashes Out At India And Russia’s ‘Dead Economies’ And Responds To Medvedev’s War Threat

Posted on by
Reply

Topline

President Donald Trump lashed out at both Russia and India in a Truth social post at midnight on Thursday, as he doubled down on the 25% tariffs he placed on New Delhi—along with an unspecified “penalty” for its continued trade with Moscow—and attacked former Russian president and key Putin ally, Dmitry Medvedev, who warned that Trump’s ultimatums against his country were a “step towards war.”

Key Facts

In a post on his Truth Social platform, the president wrote: “I don’t care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.”

Trump claimed the U.S. has done “very little business with India” as their Tariffs are “among the highest in the World,” and added: “Likewise, Russia and the USA do almost no business together.”

While announcing his plan to impose a 25% tariff on India, Trump pointed out that the country has “always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia” and is the “largest buyer” of Russian energy after China.

This was the first instance of the president following through with his threat to impose “secondary tariffs” on Russia’s key trading partners unless Moscow agrees to end its war in Ukraine.

Trump, however, didn’t specify what this penalty would entail.

What Do We Know About Trump’s Deadline For Russia?

Earlier this month, Trump threatened to impose 100% “secondary” tariffs on Russia, unless it managed to secure a deal to end the war in Ukraine in 50 days. These secondary tariffs would target countries like India and China, which are among Russia’s key trading partners. However, the president revised his deadline on Monday during his visit to Scotland and said Moscow now has 10 to 12 days to take steps towards ending its conflict with Ukraine.

What Has Medvedev Said About Trump’s Deadline For Russia?

When Trump announced the first deadline, Medvedev mocked it in a post on X, saying: “Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences. Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn’t care.” After Trump shortened the deadline on Monday, Medvedev responded, tweeting: “Trump’s playing the ultimatum game with Russia…He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don’t go down the Sleepy Joe road!”

What Did Trump Say About Medvedev?

The president had not commented on Medvedev’s earlier post, but his Thursday midnight post appears to respond to the former Russian president’s “step towards war” remark. After pointing out that Russia and the U.S. do almost no business together, Trump said: “Let’s keep it that way, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he’s still President, to watch his words. He’s entering very dangerous territory!” Medvedev, who had not shied away from nuclear saber-rattling in the past few years, has not yet responded to Trump’s remarks.

Theatrics and a complete lack of statesmanship!

Trump Hits Out Against Former Russian President’s War Threat—Doubles Down On India Tariff
Earlier on Wednesday, Trump announced a 25% tariff rate on Indian goods, along with an unspecified “penalty” for its continued trade relationship with Russia.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2025/07/31/trump-lashes-out-at-india-and-russias-dead-economies-and–responds-to-medvedevs-war-threat

Trump Lashes Out At India And Russia’s ‘Dead Economies’ And Responds To Medvedev’s War Threat
Earlier on Wednesday, Trump announced a 25% tariff rate on Indian goods, along with an unspecified “penalty” for its continued trade relationship with Russia.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-lashes-out-at-india-and-russia-s-dead-economies-and-responds-to-medvedev-s-war-threat/ar-AA1JD76k